I dunno if you saw my other thread about measuring out the Hot Potz II (measuring and plotting it's taper), but I'm also considering picking up a Hot Potz I. They're pricey ($25 at Small Bear), so I wanted to get your thoughts before dropping that much money. Have any of you tried the Hot Potz I and Hot Potz II, and could you give me comparisons please? Also, if you like it or hate it, please tell me why. I think wah pots are SUPER subjective cause it doesn't affect the tone as much as the feel, so please tell me how you feel about that.

Plus side is, if I get it, I'll measure it and pots for all you to see! So do your magic, guys! Sell me on that bad boy!

I'd like to know if there is a difference in the tapers of the two. My feeling is that the HP I is probably an S-taper (or so I've heard), and I've read somewhere that the HP II is basically linear, so it would be interesting to see what results you come up with. The HP I is expensive because it isn't available any more from Dunlop. It seems that lately a batch has hit the market, maybe Dunlop dumped the last of their stock, as Small Bear recently has them in his catalog, and a couple of sellers on Ebay had a bunch, which went quickly. The HP I is closer in construction at least to the pots in the vintage wahs.

I'd like to know if there is a difference in the tapers of the two. My feeling is that the HP I is probably an S-taper (or so I've heard), and I've read somewhere that the HP II is basically linear, so it would be interesting to see what results you come up with. The HP I is expensive because it isn't available any more from Dunlop. It seems that lately a batch has hit the market, maybe Dunlop dumped the last of their stock, as Small Bear recently has them in his catalog, and a couple of sellers on Ebay had a bunch, which went quickly. The HP I is closer in construction at least to the pots in the vintage wahs.

Al

I know for a fact that the HP II is not linear. 100% positive on that.

I recently put a HP II in Thomas Organ Cry Baby, & I like it. I had a HP I in there for years, & I thought it used to sound good with a tube preamp & Marshall 10 years ago. Over the years, I switched to pedals & Fender amps, & it didn't seem to sound as good. Years go by, I try changing caps, resistors, & fiddle with values to make it sound "better", but it never did. Too "quacky" & "on-off" as opposed to full souning with a smooth transition. This was especially noticable with dirt & fuzz pedals. Granted, the pot could have been wearing out, but wasn't really scratchy. I put the wah away & built a new pedalboard without it. A few months later, I started getting into Philip Sayce, & was wanting to use the wah again, but it sounded so bad. I changed the pot, & it's much better. Still not perfect (I don't know if there is such a thing), but, much, much better than before. It's a pleasure to play it again, & it works well with all my dirt & fuzz pedals. That wah doesn't have as much of a pedal travel as a Vox, but it still does the job.

But, without trying a brand new HP I & comparing it with the HP II, I can't really say how different they are. I only know that the new HP II sounds better to me than my older HP I.

For reference, the wah sounds I that like are SRV "Say What"; Hendrix "Still Raining, Still Dreaming" There are many more examples, but those two pop into my head.

That's very interesting. I heard the HP II had the quick transition, and you're saying it's smoother than the HPI. Interesting!

I don't think he compared the HP II to the HP I, he is talking about an older (Thomas Organ, not Dunlop) wah, which would not have had either type of HotPotz in it originally.

Al

I was indeed talking about both Hot Potz, as mentioned in my post. The original pot that came with the wah was replaced long ago.

As I said, maybe the HP I was just worn out, without sounding overly scatchy.

Sorry, I missed that part of the post. I always liked the HP I, and think it is closer to the original ICAR taper and construction than the HP II, but maybe the plotting experiment that the OP is doing will prove if the taper difference is correct or not. I do know that Teese said that replacing the one cap with a different value will get the HP II taper close to ICAR taper, but I've never tried that. The only "problem" if that is the word with the HP I IMO is that it requires a little maintenance from time to time, which means shooting some contact cleaner into it to clean it up. These days, since the HP I is not made anymore, I prefer using one of the ICAR taper pots, specifically one of the CTS ones like the Whipple guy and Area 51 sells. I believe that the Blacktop pot in either 100k or 200k is also a CTS pot (Small Bear sells those). I didn't like the Fulltone pot, as it's construction is not on par IMO with the CTS-made ones. I had the case of one come apart when trying to secure it in the wah, and I replaced it with the 200k Blacktop pot, which is working out fine. The question of whether to use the HP I or HP II will become a moot point sometime in the near future, as it is not made any more, and although there have been some available from Small Bear and a couple of EBay sellers lately, I think when that batch is gone they will become very hard to find.

In my case, my search for a good wah pot has to do with my trying to find one that acts the way the one in my original Vox Clyde McCoy did (I no longer have that pedal, but remember well how it sounded). The ICAR clone pots get me closer to that sound than the Hot Potz pots do, some others may not care about that, and just want a pot with a smooth transition from bass to treble. So different people are going to like one pot over the other depending on their personal needs.

From how it stands, I'm it's looking like I'll be more of a HP II type guy. I'm looking for something less like the ICAR taper. I like the HPII save that dead spot in the bass. Unfortunately, I think that the dead spot in the bass is a result of all resistance being bunched up in one spot.

From how it stands, I'm it's looking like I'll be more of a HP II type guy. I'm looking for something less like the ICAR taper. I like the HPII save that dead spot in the bass. Unfortunately, I think that the dead spot in the bass is a result of all resistance being bunched up in one spot.

Maybe you already know this, but when you log in to the forum, hit the "show new replies to your posts" link at the top left and all threads you've posted in will come up.

From how it stands, I'm it's looking like I'll be more of a HP II type guy. I'm looking for something less like the ICAR taper. I like the HPII save that dead spot in the bass. Unfortunately, I think that the dead spot in the bass is a result of all resistance being bunched up in one spot.

Maybe you already know this, but when you log in to the forum, hit the "show new replies to your posts" link at the top left and all threads you've posted in will come up.

Al

Yeah, but I log into the forum when I see emails saying I got replies. That's the issue.